Dataset Information

Psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) pediatric item bank peer relationships in the Dutch general population.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study aimed to validate the PROMIS Pediatric item bank v2.0 Peer Relationships and compare reliability of the full item bank to its short form, computerized adaptive test (CAT) and the social functioning (SF) subscale of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™).

Methods

Children aged 8-18 (n = 1327), representative of the Dutch population completed the Peer Relationships item bank. A graded response model (GRM) was fit to the data. Structural validity was assessed by checking item-fit statistics (S-X², p < 0.001 = misfit). For construct validity, a moderately strong correlation (> 0.50) was expected between Peer Relationships and the PedsQL SF subscale. Cross-cultural DIF between U.S. and NL was assessed using logistic regression, where an item with McFadden's pseudo R² > 0.02 was considered to have DIF. Percentage of participants reliably measured was assessed using the standard error of measurement (SEM) < 0.32 as a criterion (reliability of 0.90). Relative efficiency ((1-SEM²)/n_items) was calculated to compare how well the instruments performed relative to the amount of items administered.

Results

In total, 527 (response rate: 39.7%) children completed the PROMIS v2.0 Peer Relationships item bank (n_items = 15) and the PedsQL™ (n_items = 23). Structural validity of the Peer Relationships item bank was sufficient, but one item displayed misfit in the GRM model (S-X² < 0.001); 5152R1r ("I played alone and kept to myself"). The item 733R1r ("I was a good friend") was the only item that displayed cross-cultural DIF (R² = 0.0253). The item bank correlated moderately high (r = 0.61) with the PedsQL SF subscale Reliable measurements were obtained at the population mean and > 2SD in the clinically relevant direction. CAT outperformed all other measures in efficiency. Mean T-score of the Dutch general population was 46.9(SD 9.5).

Conclusion

The pediatric PROMIS Peer Relationships item bank was successfully validated for use within the Dutch population and reference data are now available.

SUBMITTER: Luijten MAJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8233291 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLimitations in physical functioning are a big concern especially for patients with chronic or musculoskeletal diseases. Therefore, physical functioning is often used as a core outcome of treatments. The generic patient-reported outcomes information system (PROMIS) physical function (PF) item bank has shown potential to measure PF with better precision, interpretability and lower respondent burden compared with traditional patient-reported outcome measures. This study provides an overview of the current evidence on the quality of the measurement properties of the translated Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank and its subdomains, and their derived short forms and computer adaptive tests (CATs).MethodsPubMed was searched up to June 17th 2020 for validation studies of Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF in Dutch and Flemish adults. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the COSMIN Risk of bias checklist. The COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties were used to judge the results of the studies, which were adjusted and added to where needed for this review, in the context of IRT instruments and item banks. The quality of evidence was summarized for each measurement property based on the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsEleven studies were included, evaluating the PROMIS-PF item bank, the Upper Extremity (UE) subdomain, and/or their derived short forms and CATs in different clinical populations. There is evidence for sufficient structural validity, measurement precision, construct validity, and cross-cultural validity of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank. The upper extremity subdomain item bank shows high quality evidence for structural validity and measurement precision. Content validity of these item banks has not been thoroughly demonstrated in a Dutch-Flemish population. Furthermore, the derived instruments have far less robust evidence: there are fewer validation studies available and none examined their performance as stand-alone administered instruments.ConclusionsThe first studies into the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank and the UE subdomain show promising results, with especially high quality evidence for sufficient structural validity and measurement precision. However, more studies, and with higher methodological quality, are needed to study the instruments derived from these item banks. These studies should also evaluate content validity, reliability and responsiveness.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS® Upper Extremity (DF-PROMIS-UE) V2.0 item bank was recently developed using Item Response Theory (IRT). Unknown for this bank are: (1) if it is legitimate to calculate IRT-based scores for short forms and Computerized Adaptive Tests (CATs), which requires that the items meet the assumptions of and fit the IRT-model (Graded Response Model [GRM]);(2) if it is legitimate to compare (sub) groups of patients using this measure, which requires measurement invariance; and (3) the precision of the estimated patients' scores for patients with different levels of functioning and compared to legacy measures. Aims were to evaluate (1) the assumptions of and fit to the GRM, (2) measurement invariance and (3) (comparative) precision of the DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0. METHODS:Cross-sectional data were collected in Dutch patients with upper extremity disorders. Assessed were IRT-assumptions (unidimensionality [bi-factor analysis], local independence [residual correlations], monotonicity [coefficient H]), GRM item fit, measurement invariance (absence of Differential Item Functioning [DIF] due to age, gender, center, duration, and location of complaints) and precision (standard error of IRT-based scores across levels of functioning). To study measurement invariance for language [Dutch vs. English], additional US data were used. Legacy instruments were the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), the QuickDASH and the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ). RESULTS:In total 521 Dutch (mean age?±?SD?=?51?±?17?years, 49% female) and 246 US patients (mean age?±?SD?=?48?±?14?years, 69% female) participated. The DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0 item bank was sufficiently unidimensional (Omega-H?=?0.80, Explained Common Variance?=?0.68), had negligible local dependence (four out of 1035 correlations >?0.20), good monotonicity (H?=?0.63), good GRM fit (no misfitting items) and demonstrated sufficient measurement invariance. Precise estimates (Standard Error?<?3.2) were obtained for most patients (7-item short form, 88.5%; standard CAT, 91.3%; and, fixed 7-item CAT, 87.6%). The DASH displayed better reliability than the DF-PROMIS-UE short form and standard CAT, the QuickDASH displayed comparable reliability. The MHQ-ADL displayed better reliability than the DF-PROMIS-UE short form and standard CAT for T-scores between 28 and 50. For patients with low function, the DF-PROMIS-UE measures performed better. CONCLUSIONS:The DF-PROMIS-UE v2.0 item bank showed sufficient psychometric properties in Dutch patients with UE disorders.

Project description:The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a universally applicable set of instruments, including item banks, short forms and computer adaptive tests (CATs), measuring patient-reported health across different patient populations. PROMIS CATs are highly efficient and the use in practice is considered feasible with little administration time, offering standardized and routine patient monitoring. Before an item bank can be used as CAT, the psychometric properties of the item bank have to be examined. Therefore, the objective was to assess the psychometric properties of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Physical Function item bank (DF-PROMIS-PF) in Dutch patients receiving physical therapy.Cross-sectional study.805 patients >18 years, who received any kind of physical therapy in primary care in the past year, completed the full DF-PROMIS-PF (121 items).Unidimensionality was examined by Confirmatory Factor Analysis and local dependence and monotonicity were evaluated. A Graded Response Model was fitted. Construct validity was examined with correlations between DF-PROMIS-PF T-scores and scores on two legacy instruments (SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning scale [SF36-PF10] and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability-Index [HAQ-DI]). Reliability (standard errors of theta) was assessed.The results for unidimensionality were mixed (scaled CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.045, 1th factor explained 61.5% of variance). Some local dependence was found (8.2% of item pairs). The item bank showed a broad coverage of the physical function construct (threshold-parameters range: -4.28-2.33) and good construct validity (correlation with SF36-PF10 = 0.84 and HAQ-DI = -0.85). Furthermore, the DF-PROMIS-PF showed greater reliability over a broader score-range than the SF36-PF10 and HAQ-DI.The psychometric properties of the DF-PROMIS-PF item bank are sufficient. The DF-PROMIS-PF can now be used as short forms or CAT to measure the level of physical function of physiotherapy patients.

Project description:Short form measures from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) are used widely. The present study was among the first to examine differential item functioning (DIF) in the PROMIS Depression short form scales in a sample of over 5000 racially/ethnically diverse patients with cancer. DIF analyses were conducted across different racial/ethnic, educational, age, gender and language groups.MethodsDIF hypotheses, generated by content experts, informed the evaluation of the DIF analyses. The graded item response theory (IRT) model was used to evaluate the five-level ordinal items. The primary tests of DIF were Wald tests; sensitivity analyses were conducted using the IRT ordinal logistic regression procedure. Magnitude was evaluated using expected item score functions, and the non-compensatory differential item functioning (NCDIF) and T1 indexes, both based on group differences in the item curves. Aggregate impact was evaluated with expected scale score (test) response functions; individual impact was assessed through examination of differences in DIF adjusted and unadjusted depression estimates.ResultsMany items evidenced DIF; however, only a few had slightly elevated magnitude. No items evidenced salient DIF with respect to NCDIF and the scale-level impact was minimal for all group comparisons. The following short form items might be targeted for further study because they were also hypothesized to evidence DIF. One item showed slightly higher magnitude of DIF for age: nothing to look forward to; conditional on depression, this item was more likely to be endorsed in the depressed direction by individuals in older groups as contrasted with the cohort aged 21 to 49. This item was also hypothesized to show age DIF. Only one item (failure) showed DIF of slightly higher magnitude (just above threshold) for Whites vs. Asians/Pacific Islanders in the direction of higher likelihood of endorsement for Asians/Pacific Islanders. This item was also hypothesized to show DIF for minority groups. The impact of DIF was negligible. Conditional on depression, the items, worthless and hopeless were more likely to be endorsed in the depressed direction by respondents with less than high school education vs. those with a graduate degree; the magnitude of DIF was slightly above the T1 threshold, but not that of NCDIF. These items were also hypothesized to show DIF in the direction of more feelings of worthlessness by groups with lower education. While the magnitude and aggregate impact of DIF was small, in a few instances, individual impact was observed. Information provided was relatively high, particularly in the middle upper (depressed) tail of the distribution. Reliability estimates were high (> 0.90) across all studied groups, regardless of estimation method.ConclusionsThis was the first study to evaluate measurement equivalence of the PROMIS Depression short forms across large samples of ethnically diverse groups. There were few items with DIF, and none of high magnitude, thus supporting the use of PROMIS Depression short form measures across such groups. These results could be informative for those using the short forms in minority populations or clinicians evaluating individuals with the depression short forms.